Kristine Smotherman and Brian Smotherman v. Cass Regional Medical Center, 2016 Mo. LEXIS 284

Smotherman slipped in a medical-center bathroom and sued Cass Regional Medical Center claiming a leaking soap dispenser caused a fall and subsequent injuries.
At trial plaintiff relied on photos of rusting beneath the dispenser and a nurse’s alleged statement; plaintiff conceded she did not see the cause on the floor and had inconsistent accounts and criminal convictions that defendant used to attack credibility.
Jury was instructed not to consult outside information; it returned a defense verdict.
After trial, plaintiff learned a juror had Googled the weather for the day of the fall and mentioned forecasted heavy snow during deliberations; plaintiff moved for a new trial for juror misconduct.
At the hearing nine jurors testified: the offending juror admitted the Google search and that it influenced him; eight non-offending jurors testified they either did not hear the remark or disregarded it and that it did not affect deliberations.
The trial court found the offending juror not credible, credited the eight jurors, concluded the weather info was immaterial to the central issue (whether there was soap on the floor), and denied a new trial; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether juror’s independent internet research (weather) requiring a new trial	Googled forecast was material (supports alternate cause: water) and created presumption of prejudice not rebutted	Weather evidence was immaterial to central issue (presence of soap) and presumption was rebutted by credible non-offending jurors	No abuse of discretion in denying new trial; presumption rebutted
Admissibility/weight of juror testimony to impeach verdict	Non-offending jurors’ assurances are insufficient; jurors tend to minimize misconduct and offending juror’s influence cannot be measured	Trial court is best placed to judge credibility and may credit non-offending jurors’ live testimony	Court may credit non-offending jurors; their live testimony can rebut presumption of prejudice
Effect of offending juror’s admission that his research influenced him	Admission shows deliberations were compromised and prejudice is virtually impossible to disprove	Single juror’s isolated remark was either unheard or disregarded by others; trial court found no practical effect	Trial court’s credibility findings stand; admission alone did not require new trial here
Standard of review for denial of new trial based on juror misconduct	Abuse of discretion standard still permits reversal where presumption not rebutted	Trial court’s factual findings entitled to deference	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion

Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Inst., P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. banc 2010) (trial court’s discretion and deference in juror-misconduct rulings)
Travis v. Stone, 66 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. banc 2002) (presumption of prejudice from juror’s extraneous investigation; lone offending juror’s testimony insufficient to rebut)
State v. Stephens, 88 S.W.3d 876 (Mo. App. 2002) (extraneous evidence must be material to be prejudicial)
Middleton v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co., 152 S.W.2d 154 (Mo. 1941) (skepticism about identical juror affidavits and probative value when jurors minimize misconduct)
Hoffman v. Dunham, 202 S.W. 429 (Mo. App. 1918) (trial court’s superior position to assess jurors’ credibility and demeanor)